If this leads to ANY deaths, they should be shut down and the violators tried for treason. :mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101022/ap_on_re_eu/wikileaks

LONDON – The WikiLeaks website is poised to release what the Pentagon fears is the largest cache of secret U.S. documents in history — hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports that could amount to a classified history of the war in Iraq.

U.S. officials condemned the move and said Friday they were racing to contain the damage from the imminent release, while NATO's top official told reporters he feared that lives could be put at risk by the mammoth disclosure.

Odysseus

10-22-2010, 03:38 PM

If this leads to ANY deaths, they should be shut down and the violators tried for treason. :mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101022/ap_on_re_eu/wikileaks

They're not Americans, so it isn't treason, unless they are also publishing secrets from their own governments. It is espionage, however, and that is something that we have a right to react to. By publishing classified material, Wikileaks is declaring itself a combatant.

Nubs

10-22-2010, 06:48 PM

It's funny that, within 2 hours of release, the New York Times was able to perform "A close analysis of the 391,832 documents."

m00

10-23-2010, 02:07 AM

They're not Americans, so it isn't treason, unless they are also publishing secrets from their own governments. It is espionage, however, and that is something that we have a right to react to. By publishing classified material, Wikileaks is declaring itself a combatant.

Doesn't that depend on how they get the information? I mean, if you are a journalist in a country which is NOT the US, and you are NOT a US citizen, don't you have every right to publish what's in your lap? I really can't blame the journalist on this one- it's what journalists do. If somebody dropped 30,000 classified documents from say the Chinese or Russian military, or Venezuela, onto the lap of a US reporter, does the reporter have an obligation not to publish any of it?

PoliCon

10-23-2010, 02:44 AM

Doesn't that depend on how they get the information? I mean, if you are a journalist in a country which is NOT the US, and you are NOT a US citizen, don't you have every right to publish what's in your lap? I really can't blame the journalist on this one- it's what journalists do. If somebody dropped 30,000 classified documents from say the Chinese or Russian military, or Venezuela, onto the lap of a US reporter, does the reporter have an obligation not to publish any of it?

Their obligation is to turn that info over to US intelligence.

m00

10-23-2010, 02:47 AM

Their obligation is to turn that info over to US intelligence.

Under what law?

PoliCon

10-23-2010, 02:50 AM

Under what law?

You need a law to do the right thing?

m00

10-23-2010, 02:59 AM

You need a law to do the right thing?

Well, if we start using terms like "espionage" and "treason" which are crimes punishable by death, yeah I'm a bit of a stickler for following the legal definition over the lynch mob definition. :p

PoliCon

10-23-2010, 03:01 AM

Well, if we start using terms like "espionage" and "treason" which are crimes punishable by death, yeah I'm a bit of a stickler for following the legal definition over the lynch mob definition. :p

If someone hands you a bunch of documents from a foreign government - you're not guilty of espionage or treason if you hand them over to the authorities.

m00

10-23-2010, 03:15 AM

If someone hands you a bunch of documents from a foreign government - you're not guilty of espionage or treason if you hand them over to the authorities.

And you are if you are a journalist and publish them? Under what law is such a thing compelled?

PoliCon

10-23-2010, 03:23 AM

And you are if you are a journalist and publish them? Under what law is such a thing compelled?

Again - since when do people need a law to compel them to do the RIGHT thing??

Sonnabend

10-23-2010, 05:44 AM

Under what law?
18USC1924 TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREInternational laws dealing with espionage, treason

and

uscode/18/I/37/793

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over,or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad,arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, orsignal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or
other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy,or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored,information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint,
plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to
communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it
on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver,
transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone
in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in
violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy. (h)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds
the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)-(p)) shall apply to -
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to
such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.

AmPat

10-23-2010, 02:16 PM

And you are if you are a journalist and publish them? Under what law is such a thing compelled?I can appreciate your concern fro the law.The law however was not meant to be used to rpevent the right thing. You liberals always try to skew or gray the law to skirt the intent. The intent of the law is much more important than the letter of the law.

The logical end state to this silly letter of the law crap is a vigilante bullet to the brain. People will only tolerate this academic nonsense so far when it flys obviously in the face of common sense.

Kay

10-23-2010, 05:35 PM

The logical end state to this silly letter of the law crap is a vigilante bullet to the brain.

That gets my vote. In a case like this I would have liked to have seen my CIA find
a way to make this guy mysteriously disappear along with his document stash before
it ever got published.

m00

10-24-2010, 01:23 AM

That gets my vote. In a case like this I would have liked to have seen my CIA find
a way to make this guy mysteriously disappear along with his document stash before
it ever got published.

Sending the CIA to assassinate journalists?

I'm sorry, but that's insane.

m00

10-24-2010, 01:30 AM

Sometimes I think I surfed to the wrong message board.

With regards to what sonnabend posted, here is the TOP of Title 18/1924 (the code you posted).

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

As far as I can tell, one cannot stretch this to apply to foreign journalists... in order to hang them for treason/espionage, or send the CIA to assassinate them.

You liberals always try to skew or gray the law to skirt the intent.

Well, I guess you conservatives only care about the law when it suits you, and the whole "small government" stance is something that you don't take very seriously.

Rockntractor

10-24-2010, 01:41 AM

Sometimes I think I surfed to the wrong message board.

With regards to what sonnabend posted, here is the TOP of Title 18/1924 (the code you posted).

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

As far as I can tell, one cannot stretch this to apply to foreign journalists... in order to hang them for treason/espionage, or send the CIA to assassinate them.

Well, I guess you conservatives only care about the law when it suits you, and the whole "small government" stance is something that you don't take very seriously.

Why do you keep going off on these ridiculous little tangents, if this board does match your expectations of what a conservative board should be why don't you just find another?

m00

10-24-2010, 01:47 AM

Why do you keep going off on these ridiculous little tangents, if this board does match your expectations of what a conservative board should be why don't you just find another?

AmPat threw down the gauntlet with "you liberals." Because liberals hide behind laws! :rolleyes: Of course, what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander I guess. To be honest, posters on this board sometimes don't match my expectations of what it means to be American. Maybe my expectations of others are simply too high /shrug.

Rockntractor

10-24-2010, 01:52 AM

AmPat threw down the gauntlet with "you liberals." Because liberals hide behind laws! :rolleyes: Of course, what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander I guess. To be honest, posters on this board sometimes don't match my expectations of what it means to be American.

Your're painting with a rather broad brush, I would say if none of us meet your expectations for intelligence don't let the door hit you in the ass, insulting everyone is not a good way to win friends or influence people.

Kay

10-24-2010, 09:34 AM

Sending the CIA to assassinate journalists?

I'm sorry, but that's insane.

Then let me fix that for you....
"Sending the CIA to assassinate a journalist who deliberately and knowingly
engaged in espionage, received stolen classified documents and then
intended to published said documents thereby giving direct aid to the enemy
that we are actively engaged in war with endangering thousands of lives."

Do I support the use of government assassination of such a person before
he can do damage? You bet I do. 100%. Insane maybe, effective definitely.

AmPat

10-24-2010, 11:10 AM

AmPat threw down the gauntlet with "you liberals." Because liberals hide behind laws! :rolleyes: Of course, what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander I guess. To be honest, posters on this board sometimes don't match my expectations of what it means to be American. Maybe my expectations of others are simply too high /shrug.
Then by all means, please show me an example where conservatives try to argue the gray areas or twist laws to their ends that end up circumventing the letter of the law. Please do this, I really want to know. This type nonsense pisses me off whatever the source. I mentioned liberals because they are the worst offenders. Stick to the Constitution if possibloe but don't fell obligated to stay there. The field is wide open, go for it.

Odysseus

10-24-2010, 12:22 PM

It's funny that, within 2 hours of release, the New York Times was able to perform "A close analysis of the 391,832 documents."
If they had prior possession of the documents, they aided and abetted Wikileaks and gave aid and comfort to our enemies. Now that's treason.

Well, if we start using terms like "espionage" and "treason" which are crimes punishable by death, yeah I'm a bit of a stickler for following the legal definition over the lynch mob definition. :p
No one is talking about a lynch mob. By disseminating classified documents in order to undermine our efforts in combat, Wikileaks has provided aid to our enemies and worked to defeat us. They aren't Americans, so it isn't treason, but when a foreign power or agency actively engages to facilitate your defeat on the battlefield, they are acting as a party to the conflict, and can be treated as combatants.

Again - since when do people need a law to compel them to do the RIGHT thing??
They don't, but governments need law to act upon when people don't do the right thing. That's the difference.

International laws dealing with espionage, treason

and

uscode/18/I/37/793

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over,or otherwise obtains information >snip<or (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

>snip<

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy. (h)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds
the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
I've highlighted a few relevant phrases in order to make a point. First, the designation "whoever" is not limited to US citizens or persons within the US. It applies to anyone, at any time, who engages in these acts, even if they are in jurisdictions outside of the US. Second, the act of receiving these documents is also espionage, as is their dissemination. Third, the conspiracy between Manning and Wikileaks is an additional criminal act. The US Government has standing to act against Wikileaks, either by demanding extradition if they are within an allied country, or by the use of force if they are not.

Then by all means, please show me an example where conservatives try to argue the gray areas or twist laws to their ends that end up circumventing the letter of the law. Please do this, I really want to know. This type nonsense pisses me off whatever the source. I mentioned liberals because they are the worst offenders. Stick to the Constitution if possibloe but don't fell obligated to stay there. The field is wide open, go for it.
Exactly. The law is what it is, and Wikileaks may want to pretend otherwise, but by receiving and disseminating classified information with the intent to defeat the military forces of the United States, Wikileaks has declared itself a combatant, and the laws that apply are not just the US Code, but the Geneva and Hague Conventions and international treaties. For example, the following applies in this case:

Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
Chapter III : Neutral persons
Art. 17 A neutral cannot avail himself of his neutrality
(a) If he commits hostile acts against a belligerent;
(b) If he commits acts in favor of a belligerent, particularly if he voluntarily enlists in the ranks of the armed force of one of the parties.
In such a case, the neutral shall not be more severly treated by the belligerent as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a national of the other belligerent State could be for the same act.

Disseminating classified information constitutes a hostile act against a belligerent. Julian Assange and everyone associated with Wikileaks are therefore no longer neutrals, regardless of their claims. In addition, it is unlikely that Assange could have claimed neutrality in the first place. See below:

Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
Chapter III : Neutral persons
Art. 16. The nationals of a State which is not taking part in the war are considered as neutrals.Australia is a party to this conflict. They have troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Julian Assange, is an Australian national, and therefore, he is subject to Australian law, which presumably has a treason statute. Since he is not in Australia, however, but is in hiding in a neutral state, this would seem to protect him. It doesn't. Under the "Rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare. Drafted by a Commission of Jurists at the Hague, December 1922 - February 1923. First part: Rules for the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War":

Art. 3. The installation or the operation of wireless stations, within a neutral jurisdiction, by a belligerent Power or by persons in its services, constitutes a violation of neutrality on the part of that belligerent as well as a breach of neutrality on the part of the neutral Power which permits the installation or the operation of such stations.

In other words, when Wikileaks, which constitutes a form of electronic communication that has the same status, legally, as wireless telegraphy used to have, became a party to the conflict, the abrogated not only their neutrality, but the neutrality of their host nation.

So, what we have here, is a citizen (Julian Assange) of an allied state (Australia) hiding in a neutral state (Sweden) and violating the neutrality of that state by utilizing a form of wireless telegraphy (Wikileaks), in order to disseminate classified information stolen from a belligerent party (The United States) and acting to the benefit of opposing belligerent parties with whom we are in a state of war (al Qaeda, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood). In short, by law, Assange is a combatant, as is everyone that he employs.

Now, what are our options? First, Australia should file treason charges against Assange and demand extradition. Second, the US should declare Wikileaks an enemy combatant, by congressional Declaration of War, and demand that Sweden stop violating its neutrality by giving them sanctuary. This does not mean that we have to declare war on Sweden (for one thing, their depressed population is already killing themselves off at a faster rate than we can hope to), but it does empower us to act against their business interests and impose economic sanctions and boycotts. In addition, Sweden, as an EU member state, is subject to internal pressures from France, Germany and Britain, all of which are currently led by pro US governments (would that the US was). The pressure that they could exert would be significant.

Finally, if Sweden refuses to budge, then they have abrogated their neutrality, and there is nothing prevented US personnel from acting against Wikileaks within their sanctuary. A SEAL team or Delta Troop could extract Assange or terminate him, and it would be completely legal.

I should have been a Freakin' JAG... :D

Kay

10-24-2010, 12:30 PM

A SEAL team or Delta Troop could extract Assange or terminate him, and it would be completely legal.

I should have been a Freakin' JAG... :D

Excellent.
Yes you should have. :)

Molon Labe

10-24-2010, 12:41 PM

thereby giving direct aid to the enemy
that we are actively engaged in war with endangering thousands of lives.

No one is talking about a lynch mob. By disseminating classified documents in order to undermine our efforts in combat, Wikileaks has provided aid to our enemies and worked to defeat us. They aren't Americans, so it isn't treason, but when a foreign power or agency actively engages to facilitate your defeat on the battlefield, they are acting as a party to the conflict, and can be treated as combatants.

So then what about the memo that came out recently by the Pentagon that concluded that no U.S. intelligence sources or practices were compromised by the posting of secret Afghan war logs?

Kay

10-24-2010, 12:50 PM

Molon, that was after the first round that was released, when the Pentagon issued that statment. And if it did compromise anything, do you really think they would come out with a statement saying that it did? Why would they confirm to our enemies that those docs had any importance to them. They would hopefully downplay the importance publicly even if they were scrambling behind the scenes to limit the damage. This second round of documents that was just released contains a lot more than the first bunch.

Molon Labe

10-24-2010, 12:54 PM

Molon, that was after the first round that was released, when the Pentagon issued that statment. And if it did compromise anything, do you really think they would come out with a statement saying that it did? Why would they confirm to our enemies that those docs had any importance to them. They would hopefully downplay the importance publicly even if they were scrambling behind the scenes to limit the damage. This second round of documents that was just released contains a lot more than the first bunch.

so the pentagon memo was a tactic to obfuscate the truth and was fro damage control? That's highly unlikely.

I'm not coming at this from a position of complete ignorance. There is more information out there than just the memo that suggests this dump was less than relevant to hurting US war effort.

Kay

10-24-2010, 01:02 PM

My main point was that the memo you are referencing came out after the first release of documents.

They have not issued a memo yet regarding this last bunch, to my knowledge.

Sonnabend

10-24-2010, 03:10 PM

Now, what are our options? First, Australia should file treason charges against Assange and demand extradition. Second, the US should declare Wikileaks an enemy combatant, by congressional Declaration of War, and demand that Sweden stop violating its neutrality by giving them sanctuary. This does not mean that we have to declare war on Sweden (for one thing, their depressed population is already killing themselves off at a faster rate than we can hope to), but it does empower us to act against their business interests and impose economic sanctions and boycotts. In addition, Sweden, as an EU member state, is subject to internal pressures from France, Germany and Britain, all of which are currently led by pro US governments (would that the US was). The pressure that they could exert would be significant.

Agreed. Except our lily livered government doesnt have the guts to do it............:mad:

Odysseus

10-24-2010, 03:34 PM

So then what about the memo that came out recently by the Pentagon that concluded that no U.S. intelligence sources or practices were compromised by the posting of secret Afghan war logs?
Irrelevant. What matters is intent. If we catch a terrorist on a flight while he is trying to detonate his explosive underwear, the failure to carry off his attack doesn't make him any less of a terrorist. If a Taliban member is caught carrying a weapon while engaged in operations against us, it doesn't matter if he fired the weapon, the possession of it and the presumption of his intent to use it are what make him a combatant.

The documents were classified. Manning's theft of, and conspiracy to disseminate them, is a violation of the law. Wikileaks' dissemination of them is intended to undermine our ability to fight the war, making it a belligerent act.

Excellent.
Yes you should have. :)

I thought about law school, but decided that I wanted to keep my soul. :D

Molon Labe

10-25-2010, 01:59 PM

Irrelevant. What matters is intent.

Right...and I completely disagree with the questionable methods Assange has used to get this stuff out. Better to highlight what he thinks are egregious acts than to release the documents in their entirety....especially if he isn't certain what the consequences of a full release are. We can agree that is pretty recklesss.....but I personally don't claim to know what the intent is of Assange was to release all these documents. All I can go off of is what he says. I don't claim it a good idea to infer what I think the reason might be based off speculation .....

One of the things these reports highlight is the Civilian casualties and the thuggery of the Iraqi police.
And I don't have to tell you from a previous thread where we discussed this, I think that our soldiers are in far more danger on the ground from all the accidental civiian casualties, our that own government is funding Pakistani insurgents than from these documents. You said in the other thread that the leaks would lead to tactical erosion...yet the reasons for any erosion stem more from tactical errors made years ago in how we viewed Afghani society than any leaked document. It just hasn't happened.

Let me ask you this question. One of the highlighted items is this thing called FRAGO 242.

As an Officer, do you believe you have a moral obligation to investigate any egregious acts even if a higher US command instructs you not to? IMO....That FRAGO should bother anyone who has taken a commission seriously and understands the implications of that moral code. You can PM me if this is something you think not best discussed on a public forum.

Odysseus

10-25-2010, 02:47 PM

Let me ask you this question. One of the highlighted items is this thing called FRAGO 242.

As an Officer, do you believe you have a moral obligation to investigate any egregious acts even if a higher US command instructs you not to? IMO....That FRAGO should bother anyone who has taken a commission seriously and understands the implications of that moral code. You can PM me if this is something you think not best discussed on a public forum.

No, unless the infraction occurs under my command. By that, I have an obligation to investigate any egregious actis within the scope of my authority, or to present evidence to higher so that they can initiate an investigation if it's outside of my AO. If one of my troops commits an illegal act, it is my duty to investigate or ask higher for the resources to investigate. If they tell me to let it go, I have a problem with that. In fact, I once got a less than stellar OER because I refused to look the other way when an officer of a previous unit that I belonged to committed an OPSEC violation and I reported it and refused to withdraw the report in the face of pressure from the commander.

If, OTOH, I were a BN CDR and a Soldier in another BN had an incident that violated the UCMJ or laws of land warfare, I don't have the authority to investigate that other BN. I do have the right, and obligation, to make my suspicions known to the chain of command and to provide them with any evidence which may have come to my attention. After that, it is up to the chain. I don't have the authority to investigate other officers or Soldiers who are not under my command, especially not if they are not US nationals. This is what FRAGO 242 referred to.

According to FRAGO 242, coalition troops were directed not to investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict by Iraqi forces unless it directly involves members of the coalition, either as perpetrators or victims, i.e., where the alleged infraction is anything other than Iraqi on Iraqi. In the event of an Iraqi on Iraqi incident, “only an initial report will be made … No further investigation will be required unless directed” by the chain of command. Remember that at this point, we had transferred sovereignty to the government of Iraq and they had the means and authority to investigate these kinds of allegations on their own. Were they doing it? Probably not to our standards, and certainly not to the lofty standards of Wikileaks, but once Iraq was a sovereign state again, it was up to them to handle their people.

The people who are exploiting this FRAGO are willfully misrepresenting the nature of the order and the circumstances of it. This is Julian Assange undermining our effort and slandering us, using illegally obtained documents. Sweden needs to stop providing sanctuary to these people if they want to continue to claim neutrality.

AmPat

10-25-2010, 07:23 PM

If the FRAGO was dated after Iraqi sovereignty, the US troops didn't have jurisdiction.